Thursday, May 28, 2020

Ðe following review I wrote while annoyed by unruly fellow airplane passengers leaviŋ þeir small children uſe noiſy electronic toys, so I may have lacked long-sufferiŋ.

It is quite grave that Schuurman speaks as looſely as he does, never riſiŋ above the common ſenſe, on a falſely so called teχnology — properly defined it is the ſtudy of teχnique, and that he does not do, doing little more than enumeratiŋ politically correct talking points in a neoevangelical varnish. His inſufficiency in dealiŋ with the ſubſtance of what he mentions lead to diſinformation, for example when he writes about free ſoftware licenſiŋ — as the name implies, it is licenſed, not given away, unleß it is releaſed to the public domain, which is actually quite rare — or, even worſe, when he uses the propaganda term ‘intellectual property’ for the four diſparate inſtitutes of time limited, artificial, government-created & granted private monopolies of copy rights, letters patents, trade marks & trade ſecrets.

Ellul refused ðe word technology, sticking to more modest & precise technic, & for good reason: use of such high sounding, academic-like lingo, as incidentally foreign words for concepts already present in the vernacular, obscures how prosaic is ðe world around us — & its temptations.

Moreover, it has been a long time since I read such a badly thrown together book. When I wrote just above that he enumerates politically correct talking points, I was quite literal — the text (one can barely call it a book) lacks a flow of articulate ideas, so the reader feels thrown away hiþer & tiþer, wiþout knowing whence ðe auþor (one is tempted to call him a compiler instead, but even so there are more readable compilations) comes from or where he goes.

I would like to note it even lower, if not for his at least mentioning free ſoftware. Even ſo, I was let down for I came to this book becauſe ſomeone ſaid it contained a defenſe of free ſoftware baſed on Dooyeweerd‘s categories; it does mention a very superficial justification of free ſoftware, and it does liſt Dooyeweerd‘s categories, but it never tries to articulate free ſoftware — nor oðer stuff he mentions — to Doyeeweerd’s categories. Even worſe, ðe type of diſinformed Christian who sees no ißues wiþ usiŋ private, proprietary ſoftware will not probably ſtomach enough of Schuurman’s political correctneß to even read enough to reach his ſhort, unarticulated mention on ðe rationale for free ſoftware.

Anoðer letdown was ðat ðe blurb promised Schuurman drew on Ellul, but he has noþiŋ of ðe Reformed trenchant demolition of idols Ellul had, even if Ellul ſurpriſingly was an Univerſalist.

A friend aſked quite appropriately why ðen four ſtars. I feel ðis title could provoke a better converſation deſpite its flaws.

Ðe following review I wrote while annoyed by unruly fellow airplan passengers leavin þeir small children use noisy electronic toys, so I may have lacked long-suffering.

It is quite grave that Schuurman speaks as loosely as he does, never rising above the common sense, on a falsely so called technology — properly defined it is the study of technique, and that he does not do, doing little more than enumerating politically correct talking points in a neoevangelical varnish. His insufficiency in dealing with the substance of what he mentions lead to disinformation, for example when he writes about free software licensing — as the name implies, it is licensed, not given away, unless it is released to the public domain, which is actually quite rare — or, even worse, when he uses the propaganda term ‘intellectual property’ for the four disparate institutes of time limited, artificial, government-created & granted private monopolies of copy rights, letters patents, trade marks & trade secrets.

Ellul refused ðe word technology, sticking to more modest & precise technic, & for good reason: use of such high sounding, academic-like lingo, as incidentally foreign words for concepts already present in the vernacular, obscures how prosaic is ðe world around us — & its temptations.

Moreover, it has been a long time since I read such a badly thrown together book. When I wrote just above that he enumerates politically correct talking points, I was quite literal — the text (one can barely call it a book) lacks a flow of articulate ideas, so the reader feels thrown away hiþer & tiþer, wiþout knowing whence ðe auþor (one is tempted to call him a compiler instead, but even so there are more readable compilations) comes from or where he goes.

I would like to note it even lower, if not for his at least mentioning free software. Even so, I was let down for I came to this book because someone said it contained a defense of free software based on Dooyeweerd‘s categories; it does mention a very superficial justification of free software, and it does list Dooyeweerd‘s categories, but it never tries to articulate free software — nor oðer stuff he mentions — to Doyeeweerd’s categories. Even worse, ðe type of disinformed Christian who sees no issues wiþ using private, proprietary software will not probably stomach enough of Schuurman’s political correctness to even read enough to reach his short, unarticulated mention on ðe rationale for free software.

Anoðer letdown was ðat ðe blurb promised Schuurman drew on Ellul, but he has noþing of ðe Reformed trenchant demolition of idols Ellul has, even if Ellul is surprisingly an Universalist.

Saturday, February 15, 2020

The book is actually three works in one. The first is a very good exposition of Baptist fœderalism, focusing on the dichotomous nature of the Abrahamic covenant, a feature missed by Presbyterian & Congregationalists that is the Achiles’ heel of their systems, with the application of it to issues of law & grace.

The second is a retelling of the Biblical storyline. I guess it might be deemed quite good, but I guess I am not wired to its format & style. It was a chore, to be blunt.

The third is a few pages of application of Baptist fœderalism to the New perspective on Paul. It was quite refreshing how it solves not only the perplexities of baby sprinkling, but also of new approaches to Paul.

A very surpriſiŋ — at leaſt to me — take on Ðe Soŋ of ſoŋs as a dramatic poem between a decadent, polygamous Salomon, ðe Shulamite he preſumably had kidnapped, ðe Shulamite’s country lover & a chorus of harem women. Starts very well, ðen wanders off a bit tryiŋ to find applications on friendſhip & ðe like, but ðen finiſhes well wiþ ðe Soŋ itſelf ſet dramatically.